Intelligent negotiation model for ubiquitous group decision scenarios

  • João Carneiro
  • Diogo Martinho
  • Goreti Marreiros
  • Paulo Novais
Article

Abstract

Supporting group decision-making in ubiquitous contexts is a complex task that must deal with a large amount of factors to succeed. Here we propose an approach for an intelligent negotiation model to support the group decision-making process specifically designed for ubiquitous contexts. Our approach can be used by researchers that intend to include arguments, complex algorithms, and agents’ modeling in a negotiation model. It uses a social networking logic due to the type of communication employed by the agents and it intends to support the ubiquitous group decision-making process in a similar way to the real process, which simultaneously preserves the amount and quality of intelligence generated in face-to-face meetings. We propose a new look into this problem by considering and defining strategies to deal with important points such as the type of attributes in the multicriterion problems, agents’ reasoning, and intelligent dialogues.

Keywords

Group decision support systems Ubiquitous computing Automatic negotiation Social networks Multi-agent systems 

CLC number

TP181 O22 

References

  1. Allen, J., Blaylock, N., Ferguson, G., 2002. A problem solving model for collaborative agents. Proc. 1st Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.774–781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/544862.544923Google Scholar
  2. Alonso, S., Herrera-Viedma, E., Chiclana, F., et al., 2010. A web based consensus support system for group decision making problems and incomplete preferences. Inform. Sci., 180(23):4477–4495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2010.08.005MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bashiri, M., Hosseininezhad, S.J., 2009. A fuzzy group decision support system for multifacility location problems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 42(5):533–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1621-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonzon, E., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P., 2012. Knowing each other in argumentation-based negotiation. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.1413–1414.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, K., Chidambaram, L., 2003. Mini-track: distributed group support systems (DGSS). Proc. 36th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on Systems Science, p.16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2003.1173658Google Scholar
  6. Carneiro, J., Santos, R., Marreiros, G., et al., 2014a. Overcoming the lack of human-interaction in ubiquitous group decision support systems. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett., 49:116–124. http://onlinepresent.org/proceedings/vol49_2014/24.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. Carneiro, J., Santos, R., Marreiros, G., et al., 2014b. Understanding decision quality through satisfaction. Int. Conf. on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, p.368–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07767-3_33Google Scholar
  8. Carneiro, J., Martinho, D., Marreiros, G., et al., 2015. Individual definition of multi-criteria problems in ubiquitous GDSS. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett., 97:99–106. http://onlinepresent.org/proceedings/vol97_2015/17.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. Dean, J.W., Sharfman, M.P., 1996. Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J., 39(2):368–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Melo, C.M., Carnevale, P., Gratch, J., 2011. The effect of expression of anger and happiness in computer agents on negotiations with humans. 10th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.937–944.Google Scholar
  11. Dennis, A.R., 1996. Information exchange and use in small group decision making. Small Group Res., 27(4):532–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496496274003MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. El-Sisi, A.B., Mousa, H.M., 2012 Argumentation based negotiation in multiagent system. 7th Int. Conf. on Computer Engineering & Systems, p.261–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCES.2012.6408525Google Scholar
  13. Fan, X.Y., Toni, F., 2014. Decision making with assumptionbased argumentation. 2nd Int. Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation, p.127–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54373-9_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fan, X.Y., Toni, F., Mocanu, A., et al., 2014. Dialogical two-agent decision making with assumption-based argumentation. Proc. Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, p.533–540.Google Scholar
  15. Gorsevski, P.V., Cathcart, S.C., Mirzaei, G., et al., 2013. A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio. Energy Pol., 55: 374–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guo, C.Z., Guo, K., Lin, W., et al., 2005. The research on the software architecture of negotiatory synthetical forecasting GDSS based on J2EE. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, p.27–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2005.194140Google Scholar
  17. Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Verdegay, J.L., 1997. A rational consensus model in group decision making using linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst., 88(1):31–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00047-4MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang, P., Sycara, K.A., 2002. A computational model for online agent negotiation. Proc. 35th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, p.438–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2002.993892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huber, G.P., 1984. Issues in the design of group decision support sytems. MIS Quart., 8(3):195–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/248666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M., 1998. Applications of intelligent agents. In: Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M. (Eds.), Agent Technology. Springer, Berlin, p.3–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03678-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kakas, A., Moraitis, P., 2006. Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation. Proc. 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.384–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1160633.1160701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kar, A.K., 2014. Revisiting the supplier selection problem: an integrated approach for group decision support. Expert Syst. Appl., 41(6):2762–2771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D., 1998. A group decision and negotiation support system for argumentation based reasoning. 4th Pacific Rim Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, p.188–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64413-X_36Google Scholar
  24. Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D., 2001. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inform. Syst., 26(4):259–277.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R., 2005. Is it worth arguing? 1st Int. Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, p.234–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32261-0_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A., 1998. Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif. Intell., 104(1-2):1–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00078-2MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Marey, O., Bentahar, J., Asl, E.K., et al., 2014. Agents’ uncertainty in argumentation-based negotiation: classification and implementation. Proc. Comput. Sci., 32:61–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marreiros, G., Santos, R., Ramos, C., et al., 2010. Context aware emotional model for group decision making. IEEE Intell. Syst., 99:1541–1672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2010.1Google Scholar
  29. Maznevski, M.L., 1994. Understanding our differences: performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relat., 47(5):531–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moreno-Jiménez, J.M., Aguarón, J., Escobar, M.T., 2008. The core of consistency in AHP-group decision making. Group Dec. Negot., 17(3):249–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9072-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Müller, J., 1996. The Design of Intelligent Agents: a Layered Approach. Springer, Berlin, Germany. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0017806Google Scholar
  32. Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Ramamurthy, K., 2004. User satisfaction with system, decision process, and outcome in GDSS based meeting: an experimental investigation. Proc. 37th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, p.37–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265108Google Scholar
  33. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., et al., 2003. Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 18(4):343–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269888904000098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., Jennings, N.R., et al., 2007. Stratum: a methodology for designing heuristic agent negotiation strategies. Appl. Artif. Intell., 21(6):489–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08839510701408971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramchurn, S.D., Sierra, C., Godo, L., et al., 2007. Negotiating using rewards. Artif. Intell., 171(10-15):805–837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.014MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Reicher, S., Haslam, S.A., Hopkins, N., 2005. Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quart., 16(4):547–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosaci, D., 2012. Trust measures for competitive agents. Knowl. Syst., 28:38–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2011.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Santos, R., Marreiros, G., Ramos, C., et al., 2010. Using personality types to support argumentation. 6th Int. Workshop Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, p.292–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R., Noriega, P., et al., 1998. A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. Proc. 4th Int. Workshop on Intelligent Agents IV, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, p.177–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0026758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smits, M.T., Postma, Th.J.B.M., Takkenberg, C.A.Th., et al., 1993. A GDSS methodology for personnel planning in rheumatology. Proc. IFIP TC8/WG8.3 Working Conf. on Decision Support in Public Administration, p.149–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-81485-2.50016-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sycara, K., Pannu, A., Williamson, M., et al., 1996. Distributed intelligent agents. IEEE Expert, 11(6):36–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/64.546581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tavana, M., Kennedy, D.T., Rappaport, J., et al., 1993. An AHP-Delphi group decision support system applied to conflict resolution in hiring decisions. J. Manag. Syst., 5(1):49–74.Google Scholar
  43. Walton, D., 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Wooldridge, M.J., 2000. Reasoning about Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.MATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Wooldridge, M.J., Jennings, N.R., 1995. Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 10(2):115–152. http://dx.doi.or/10.1017/S0269888900008122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Xu, Z.S., 2009. An automatic approach to reaching consensus in multiple attribute group decision making. Comput. Ind. Eng., 56(4):1369–1374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2008.08.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yen, J., Yin, J.W., Ioerger, T.R., et al., 2001. Cast: collaborative agents for simulating teamwork. 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, p.1135–1144.Google Scholar
  48. Zhang, G.Q., Ma, J., Lu, J., 2009. Emergency management evaluation by a fuzzy multi-criteria group decision support system. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 23(4): 517–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00477-008-0237-3MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Zhejiang University Science Editorial Office and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • João Carneiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Diogo Martinho
    • 1
  • Goreti Marreiros
    • 1
  • Paulo Novais
    • 2
  1. 1.GECAD-Knowledge Engineering and Decision Support Group, Institute of EngineeringPolytechnic of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.ALGORITMI CentreUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal

Personalised recommendations